The Consequences of Brexit (part 3)

[L00b 441]

The UK government pays the bill for them.

Better be quiet about it then (as I keep hearing from Leavers that there is absolutely no way in hell the UK will pay anything towards an EU divorce bill...and if the UK doesn't pay its divorce bill, I can't see any national health system anywhere in the EU extending any credit line howsoever to any Brits, due to the significant risk of not getting paid: yes, that means hand over the VISA on the ambulance trolley, or discover your inner self-healing powers).

There is no reason at all why we should not have reciprocal health care arrangements with the EU after Brexit.

In principle, no. But in practice, the will of the people apparently seems to be against it -which May & Co can therefore be expected to follow- and the UK does not hold the strongest hand in the negotiations on that particular front (I read recently that the UK is the EU member state with the largest number of nationals disseminated within the EU relative to its national population size; I was surprised, would have expected the Irish to at least match that).

The head of the Green Party in the Scottish Parliament repeated this load of nonsense in the debate on Scottish independence yesterday.

The irony of May's Brexiteers being hoisted on their own misrepresentative populist petard is not wasted one me Edited March 22, 2017 by L00b

[NigelFargate 10]

In principle, no. But in practice, the will of the people apparently seems to be against it -which May & Co can therefore be expected to follow- and the UK does not hold the strongest hand in the negotiations on that particular front (I read recently that the UK is the EU member state with the largest number of nationals disseminated within the EU relative to its national population size; I was surprised, would have expected the Irish to at least match that).

The irony of May's Brexiteers being hoisted on their own misrepresentative populist petard is not wasted one me

 

I doubt the accuracy of the two 'facts' you mention here, i.e. that the UK citizens would be against a reciprocal health care regime if it was explained to them clearly; and also that we have the largest number of nationals relative to population living or working in other member states. What about Poland, for example? I would like to see the source of your assertion.

[L00b 441]

I doubt the accuracy of the two 'facts' you mention here, i.e. that the UK citizens would be against a reciprocal health care regime if it was explained to them clearly;

I did not represent that "the UK citizens would be against a reciprocal health care regime" as a fact, but as the logical outcome of the poll results which I linked in post #130. Hence my deliberate use of the word 'apparently'. Did you miss it, by any chance?

 

Next, re. bit in black, you can shift goalposts, Nigel, and I might even let you get away with it...but not when that shift takes them onto a different continent altogether. If you don't mind.

and also that we have the largest number of nationals relative to population living or working in other member states. What about Poland, for example? I would like to see the source of your assertion.

here, although on 2nd reading I'll readily acknowledge that it does not differentiate between EU and non-EU residency, so my hand is up in that respect.

 

Poland looks to be 2nd according to that link, with 800,000 Poles in the UK (source). So 1.2m Brits across the EU vs 0.8m Poles in the UK (for context).

Edited March 22, 2017 by L00b

[unbeliever 10]

Better be quiet about it then (as I keep hearing from Leavers that there is absolutely no way in hell the UK will pay anything towards an EU divorce bill...and if the UK doesn't pay its divorce bill, I can't see any national health system anywhere in the EU extending any credit line howsoever to any Brits, due to the significant risk of not getting paid: yes, that means hand over the VISA on the ambulance trolley, or discover your inner self-healing powers).

 

 

We don't owe the EU any money.

Perhaps we should avoid a reciprocal healthcare agreement in case the EU decides to just invent a massive bill for us to pay.

[Cyclone 10]

The EU has said that it will take us to court for the bill they think we'll owe them.

Oh, and May has said that we'll start a trade war with them. Because it's the only way to take back arr sovrinity, init. Jeezuz wept.

[unbeliever 10]

The EU has said that it will take us to court for the bill they think we'll owe them.

Oh, and May has said that we'll start a trade war with them. Because it's the only way to take back arr sovrinity, init. Jeezuz wept.

 

Which court? I'm actually asking.

The HoL and government lawyers are extremely confident that the EU would lose such a case.

If they did, would that convince the Europhiles that this EU demand for money is illegitimate? You know, rule of law and all. If so, then perhaps we should encourage it.

[Cyclone 10]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/21/remain-voters-warming-idea-brexit-poll-shows/

 

taking Britain to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

 

ALso

 

Britain will slap tariffs on EU goods if Brussels play hardball

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/22/theresa-may-article-50-brexit-omqs-watch-live/

Because we'd definitely win a trade war with one of the largest trading blocks in the world!

 

Obviously if the EU lost the case then I'd be convinced that we didn't legally owe them anything... If they win the case would you accept that we legally owed them the money, oh, and that brexit was a huge disaster, achieving nothing and costing us a fortune?

[chalga 10]

We don't owe the EU any money.

Perhaps we should avoid a reciprocal healthcare agreement in case the EU decides to just invent a massive bill for us to pay.

 

Obviously you go straight to WTO trading instead of wasting 2 years trying to get a deal you have no chance of agreement on.

[unbeliever 10]

Obviously you go straight to WTO trading instead of wasting 2 years trying to get a deal you have no chance of agreement on.

 

Everybody's just laying out their initial positions at this point.

Various national governments will put pressure on the EU not to wreck the whole thing.

[chalga 10]

Everybody's just laying out their initial positions at this point.

Various national governments will put pressure on the EU not to wreck the whole thing.

 

The EU are various national governments,are you trying to say that this bill the EU are going to be asking for is just an 'initial position'?

[unbeliever 10]

The EU are various national governments,are you trying to say that this bill the EU are going to be asking for is just an 'initial position'?

 

Yes.

 

They're asking for us to contribute to the ongoing operational costs of an organisation we shall no longer be part of. It's silly.

[L00b 441]

We don't owe the EU any money.

OK.

Perhaps we should avoid a reciprocal healthcare agreement in case the EU decides to just invent a massive bill for us to pay.

Given the above, then there isn't going to be any reciprocal healthcare agreement to discuss, period.

 

/discussion about notional reciprocal healthcare agreement

 

Which court? I'm actually asking.

Again? I told you before. So did the linked article. (and the respective jurisdictions are not mutually exclusive btw)

The HoL and government lawyers are extremely confident that the EU would lose such a case.

If they did, would that convince the Europhiles that this EU demand for money is illegitimate?

If the EU eventually lost such a case, yes it would convince me. That would be years after the Article 50 deadline expires, btw.

 

Until then, no chance: neither the HoL nor the government laywers trump a Court of law in the authority stakes.

 

I told you as much months and months ago when we were discussing the Gina Miller challenge at the time, you siding with the government's PR of "certain win under the Royal prerogative", and me telling you the government had no chance, same again with the appeal at the Supreme Court. A High Court judgement and a Supreme Court judgement later...

 

What if the EU didn't lose the case, though?

If so, then perhaps we should encourage it.

Given your stance, I'm very much with chalga on the "why waste 2 years, go straight to WTO" argument, btw. Pragmatically, if the UK won't settle its tab with the EU, in whole or part, it can't realistically expect to obtain anything out of the EU, so why bother 'negotiating' at all? Edited March 22, 2017 by L00b